Narendra Modi’s food security math doesn’t work out

His arguments look justifiable at a superficial level, but do not stand up to close scrutiny.

Poll

Will high food prices be a major election issue in the 2014 polls?

Yes

No

Can't say

By Anurodh Lalit Jain

After many twists and turns, the longawaited National Food Security Bill (NFSB) was passed in Parliament. But the controversy around the Bill got more interesting after Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi threw his hat in the ring. His arguments look justifiable at a superficial level, but do not stand up to close scrutiny.

Modi questioned the reduction in monthly entitlement of below-poverty-line (BPL) families from 35 kg to 25 kg per month. The NFSB ensures that the poorest of the poor continue to be covered under Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) and get 35 kg of food grain monthly. Second, Gujarat itself raised the BPL entitlement from 20 kg to 35 kg after a high court order in 2008. According to central numbers, Gujarat has around 21 lakh families under BPL and AAY.

The state government provides AAY beneficiaries wheat/rice at subsidised price of Rs 2/3 per kg, but BPL families are given only the first 15 kg food grain at such rates. The state also divides the above-poverty-line (APL) families into APL-1 and APL-2.

While there is no subsidised food grain for APL-2 people, APL-1, who are marginally above the poverty line, are given up to 15 kg of wheat/rice at Rs 7.50-10 per kg. The NFSB expands the ambit of highly-subsidised entitlements from 25% to 67% of the population including around 78 lakh families in Gujarat.

Modi also expressed his disagreement on the pricing structure as it would lead to an additional Rs 85 expenditure for a BPL family. The subsidised price of food grain under NFSB will stand to benefit existing BPL as well as 71 lakh marginal APL families of Gujarat, who are paying more for food grain.

A comparative analysis of the NFSB model versus the Gujarat PDS model shows that marginal APL and BPL families of Gujarat stand to gain Rs 227 and Rs 50 per month, respectively, for 25 kg of food grain per month. For the additional 10 kg falling short, the state government could bear the burden for 14 lakh BPL families at open market rate.

This adds up to around Rs 22 crore per month, a minuscule amount, compared to the huge subsidy doled out on a single Nano project in Gujarat. Modi says that NFSB does not ensure nutritional security. NFSB pays special attention to the nutritional need of children and women. Pregnant women and lactating mothers get nutritious food free of charge in addition to the maternity benefit of Rs 6,000.

There is also provision of hot cooked meals and rations for children. Modi said the UPA had arbitrarily decided the number of beneficiaries under NFSB. He also said the Planning Commission's claims of poverty reduction did not square with the government's intention to provide food support to two-thirds of the population.

Today, it seems unviable to provide universal coverage. Given the diverse socioeconomic condition of each state, it makes no sense to have a onesize-fits-all model, and let each state develop its own eligibility criteria. While the Centre identifies the poor on the basis of the ninth and 10th Plans, Gujarat defines it on the basis of the eighth Plan, where the number of poor is more.

There are intangible costs of hunger and malnutrition. A World Bank report reckons that malnutrition brings down 3% of country's GDP annually. We must measure India's success with broader indicators than just GDP.